Yesterday, our news outlet published a report on the allegations involving a powerful South Carolina lawmaker and a utility company that lobbied him as chairman of the SC Chamber of Industry and Labor Committee – a panel that debates laws involving public services.
Our report – which detailed allegations involving state representatives Bill Sandifer and Chuck Claunch, a registered lobbyist in Charlotte, North Carolina Duke Energy – caused a firestorm.
It also relived stories of many previous Sandifer scandals …
And Duke’s previous ethical issues …
At the center of our last report? Claims that Claunch has provided Sandifer with food and alcohol at legislative conferences in apparent violation of the SC Code of Laws (§ 2-17-80).
Following our report, we are informed that several investigations are underway on the nature and extent of the relationship between Sandifer and Claunch – including several alleged links that we were not aware of when we published our article yesterday.
As we investigate these allegations, others are investigating what we reported yesterday …
Among those questions? An internal review said it was initiated by Duke, which, according to our sources, sought records of Claunch’s receipts, as well as lobbyists with Southern Group – one of the companies that represents the concessionaire before the SC General Assembly.
This internal review supposedly dates back to 2012, a utility insider told us – that was when an expensive dinner involving Sandifer and other members of the Palmetto State Public Service Review Commission (PURC) attracted the attention of regulators.
Readers will remember that PURC members (including Sandifer) were among those who slept at the wheel during NukeGate – South Carolina’s failed economic command intervention in the nuclear power industry that collapsed in July 2017.
In any event, no action was taken on this dinner – which was rumored to have cost more than $ 5,000 – but our sources say it ushered in a “pattern” of abuse involving lobbyists and the lawmakers they seek to influence.
“They got away with it – so they kept doing it,” a lobbyist familiar with the 2012 survey told us.
In the meantime, we are told that officials from “multiple ethics agencies” are investigating the allegations involving Sandifer – although, as we noted earlier, state lawmakers have almost exclusive authority to police themselves on ethical issues.
Which means that investigations into his misbehavior rarely end up producing anything other than laundering … even if lawmakers are operating clearly outside the limits of the law.
In Sandifer’s case, however, a huge gap in the lobbying laws could conceivably absolve him of guilt.
As noted in our coverage, Claunch and Sandifer are alleged to have complied with the letter of the law when purchasing the food and alcoholic drinks in question for the ostensible use of the president’s wife – Sandra Sandifer – who in turn “shared” them with her husband.
“At least half a dozen sources claim to have witnessed this ‘sharing’ in no less than four legislative conferences in the past five years,” we note in our report.
Can Claunch (or any other lobbyist) legally buy food and alcohol for a legislator’s spouse?
Yes …
While many statutes in Palmetto state extend prohibitions involving lawmakers to include their wives or other family members, lobbying laws do not contain such restrictions.
Talk about a glaring loophole …
A State House source told us that lobbyists’ ability to drink and eat lawmakers through their spouses (or other dining companions) constituted a gray area in the law that required clarification.
Why, they wondered, should lobbyists be allowed to buy expensive food, bottles of wine and alcoholic drinks for an important person in the legislator knowing full well that the legislator was the intended beneficiary?
But is closing the spouse’s breach the answer?
Given the extent to which legislative spouses are often expressly excluded from conferences outside the city (feel free to read between the lines), our sources have speculated that additional “gaps” may need to be addressed.
“Closing the gap to include spouses is not going to solve the problem much,” a veteran lobbyist told us. “Maybe if you add (ed) lovers and escorts.”
Wow …
In addition to keeping our readers informed of the latest developments in the Sandifer case, we will be sure to monitor all efforts by lawmakers to address what are clearly exploitable gaps in the state’s lobbying laws.
Stay tuned …
-FITSNews
*****
WANT TO TURN OFF THE SOUND?
Is there anything you would like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open mic policy! Send your own letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Do you have a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Have a technical question or failure to report? CLICK HERE. Do you want to help support what we are doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.
Flag: Getty